Se re ere 


pa eer gre alge 


LIBRARY 


OF THE 


UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA. 


GIFT OF 


. 


νυ 


ε . 


gitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2007 with funding from 


- Microsoft Corporation 


00sar 


ΠΗ CYNEGETICUS 


DISSERTATION 


SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD OF UNIVERSITY STUDIES OF THE 
JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY IN CONFORMITY WITH 
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF 
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY 


BY 


HENRY NEVILL SANDERS, M. A. 


UNIVERSITY 
ὡ 


(ΑΙ. FO saith 


BALTIMORE 
1903 


The Lord Baltimore Dress 


THE FRIEDENWALD COMPANY 
BALTIMORE, MD., U. 8. A. 


Φαμὶ διδασκαλίαν Χείρωνος οἴσειν. 
Pindar, Pyth. IV 102. 


Vieillard! tels m’ont parlé ces pasteurs des humains 
Nourris de ton esprit, élevés par tes mains... 
Leconte de Lisle, Khirén. 


Alle suche dysport as voydith ydilnesse 
Yt syttyth euery gentilman to knowe; 
For myrthe annexed is to gentilnesse. 
Qwerfore among alle oper, as y trowe, 
To know the craft of hontyng and to blowe, 
As thys book shall witnesse, is one the beste ; 
For it is holsum, plesaunt, and honest.— 
And for to sette yonge hunterys in the way, 
To venery y caste me fyrst to go, 
Of wheche .IIII. bestis be, that is to say 
The hare, the herte, pe wulfhe, the wylde boor also; 
Of venery for sothe per be no moe. 
And so it shewith here in portretewre, 
Where euery best is set in hys figure. 
Twici, 
(Eng. version from Cottonian MS. B, XII Vesp.) 


, ——_a chee oe Dre % ps 


THE CYNEGETICUS. 


In the earlier years of modern scholarship the critical treatment 
of the Cynegeticus was confined to attack upon its genuineness 
as a work of Xenophon and resulted in athetesis in whole or in 
part. More recently the work has been subjected to investigation 
both from the point of view of philosophic content and from that 
of stylistic detail. ‘The two latter phases of criticism, thoroughly 
worked out as they have been by modern scientific method, have 
been altogether inconclusive as to the authorship and the date of 
the treatise. Towards the solution of these difficulties, I pro- 
pose to apply a fourth line of investigation, if possibly I may 
weave the results arrived at by my predecessors to a logical con- 
clusion, by trying to determine more nearly the date of publica- 
tion from literary allusion and the locality from topographical 
consideration. In pursuance of this object I originally prepared 
’ a somewhat lengthy dissertation dealing with the ethos of the 
Cynegeticus in the form of a detailed commentary, at the same 
time devoting much space to the articles of scholars relating to 
the subject, and finally briefly indicating my own conclusions. 
This dissertation was accepted by the Board of University 
Studies of the Johns Hopkins University in February of 1903, 
and should have been published forthwith, but considerations 
arose which suggested the advisability of putting much of the 
matter in the form of « text book,’ and in consequence I have 
ventured to reconstruct the dissertation so as to deal exclusively 
with the problem of authorship. 

The plan of the Cynegeticus divides naturally into three 
parts:—a proem I 1-17 lauding venery at the time when Greek 


1This point must be emphasised, as the Board of Studies of the Johns 
Hopkins University would hardly have accepted the dissertation in its pres- 
ent form as adequate, nor would the writer have had the hardihood to offer 
the same. On the other hand, in the edition proposed there may be much 
to offend scholars who are not sportsmen, even as the Cynegeticus has 
proved offensive being tentative in Greek Literature—on the border land 
between a treatise and an epideictic effusion, holding a place as precarious 
as the social prestige of a fancier. 


6 THE CYNEGETICUS. 


Chivalry sat at the feet of Cheiron the Centaur; a hunter’s man- 
ual I 18-XI 4; an epilogue XII 1-XIII 18 enforcing the value of 
training in sport as conducive to soundness of mind and body, 
and to capacity in military and political conduct, and further 
attacking certain teachers of the school of ἡδονή. 

In the last quarter of a century or so the upholders of athetesis 
have been represented by Seymour, Lincke, Rosenstiel, Norden 
(as regards the proem), and Richards (mentioned in this connec- 
tion rather for his attitude towards Xenophon’s works gener- 
ally). With the exception of Norden, these writers incline to ac- 
cept the work as Xenophon’s with athetesis of later accretions." 

Seymour’? for instance regards, with a few minor omissions, as » 
the work of Xenophon I 18-II 8, VI 7-16, VI 23-VII 4, VII 6 
and ἡ, VII 9-IX 7, IX 11,12, 17, 18, X 1-3, 19-23, XII 1-17. 
He thus gets rid of certain touches of naturalistic humour, over- 
interpretation of observation or quaint traditions of hunters’ lore, | 
and their formulary concomitants of curious syntax, all of which 
he regards as late, but which may be equally well supported as 
survivals of antiquity or anticipations of later idiom. One must 
remember that the sphere of the book, the sphere of venery, has 
ever been a curious mixture of low relief and high rhetoric, of 
antiquated terms and neological colloquialism. 

K. Lincke*® condemns the authorities that catalogued Xeno- 
phon’s works in the Alexandrian Library among other things for 
retaining the Cynegeticus in the edition “which forms the 
foundation of all our MSS. without exception, with the spu- 
rious introduction and conclusion.” Incidentally the form of 
the Aeneas legend points to the proem as having been written 
before the IIId century.“ A note on geography, a numerical 
calculation, a detail of mythology at once reveals to him an 
interpolation. ‘The genuine preface (I 18) precludes the possi- 
bility of the work being that of a veavicxos.”” Later Lincke® re- 
ceived a further incentive to discuss the Cynegeticus from Rosen- 


1J. J. Hartman refuses to accept the work as Xenophon’s, regarding it 
as inconceivable that a sportsman should be responsible for it. See 
page 12, note 1. 

2Seymour, Trans. Am. Phil. Ass. 1878, p. 69 ff. 

2K. Lincke, Hermes XVII. 1882. p. 279f. Compare A.J. Ρ. 11. 199 
footnote. 

4Cf. F. Riithl, Zeitschrift fiir die Oesterreichischen Gymnasien XXXI. 
411 ff. 

5K. Lincke, Jahrb. f. Cl. Phil. CLIII. pp. 209-217. 


THE CYNEGETICUS. 7 


stiel’s Sondershausen Program. The author of Cyn. I 1-17 and 
XII, says Lincke, is still a schoolboy at his exercises. The 
hunting treatise 1 18-XII 9 may be regarded as a unity. Special 
emphasis is laid upon the appendix XII 10 ff. which is a polemic 
against interested rivalry—in the book trade. The sons of Xeno- 
phon as pupils of a second Cheiron shared in the production of 
the Cynegeticus or at least in the introduction and conclusion. 
He contends that the hunting treatise and the remarks on the 
existing Persian Polity were written by a single author who had 
not studied much beyond the Cyropaedeia.’ “There are two 
personalities, two individualities dissimilar in understanding and 
disposition as they are in language, whom we here see in faithful 
singleness of heart busying themselves with copying Xeno- 
phontean conceptions and showing peculiar activity in the dis- 
semination of Xenophontean writings. The one writes for love 
of his subject; the other, some not ingenuous Athenian teacher 
and literary man, from personal interest seeks morally to anni- 
hilate his co-rivals for the favour of the wealthy, and in his pas- 
sionate eagerness has made the modest author of the Anabasis 
and Oyropaedeia a publisher of an impudent advertisement for 
his own writings.” 

Rosenstiel,’ comparing the Cynegeticus with kindred writings 
of Xenophon, had concluded that in the former Xenophon comes 
forward as an instructor to young people; that young people 
require the matter in hand to be objectively impressed on them, 
while a manner of subjective suggestion is more in keeping with 
the maturity of the readers appealed to in the Hipparchus and 
de re equestri. The use of the infin.-imperat. is held by Rosen- 
stiel to point to such effort for objectivity. He remarks that the 
Cynegeticus was not intended for publication, or a large circula- 
tion, the sketchy character of many passages being in evidence. 
He is inclined to see an interpolator’s hand where the author of 
the treatise on the Sublime might see agreeable variation—e. g. 
the change from singular to plural. He concludes that Xeno- 
phon’s audience was composed of his sons and their companions, 
in connection with which he says: Darum kann ich mir wohl 
denken, dass X., selbst ein zweiter Cheiron (Cyn. I 2), das, was in 
Kinleitung und Schluss zur Empfehlung und zum Preise der 


1Cf. K. Lincke, Philologus 1901. p. 564 f. 
2¥. Rosenstiel, Ueber die eigenartige Darstellungsform in Xenophons 
Cynegeticus, Program Sondershausen, 1891. 


8 THE CYNEGETICUS. 


Jagd enthalten ist, in Ahnlicher Weise seinen jugendlichen 
Zuho6rern, um ihren EHifer zu wecken, miindlich entwickelt und 
dabei auch seine tiefe Abneigung gegen die damaligen Sophisten, 
die Lehrer einer falschen Bildung, ungeniert ausgesprochen hat, 
und dass dies etwa von einem seiner Séhne der Jagdanleitung 
hinzugefiigt worden ist; fiir diese selbst aber was die schriftliche — 
Aufzeichnung geboten. The date of composition he sets at 
384-383. The main part of the work contains no naive tone, no 
fervor iuvenilis, and introduction and conclusion and certain 
other passages are to be set down to an interpolator. 

‘Norden! treats of the proemium of the Cynegeticus in that - 
division of the Kunstprosa which he entitles “Von Hadrian bis 
zum Ende des Kaiserzeit,” a position that has not failed to draw 
comment from the critics. His whole treatment depends upon 
Radermacher’s article then recently published, to the conclusions 
of which he subscribes except for the date of the proem. This. 
he assigns to the Zweite Sophistik. He quotes Cyn. I 3 and 
adds: this affected modesty is however precisely one of the most 
prominent and offensive properties of the style of the Zweite 
Sophistik. ‘Dass in solchem Stil ausscbliesslich Vertreter der 
sog. Zweiten Sophistik geschrieben haben, kann ich mit grésster 
Bestimmtheit versichern.” This is decided enough, yet the 
Zweite Sophistik is a phase of style not a period, and one may read 
the entire book without being able to decide what limits in time 
Norden sets to the Zweite Sophistik. Philostratus’ writes: 
περὶ δὲ Αἰσχίνου τοῦ ᾿Ατρομήτου, ὅν φαμεν τῆς δευτέρας σοφιστικῆς ἄρξαι. .... 
Yet Norden writes: Radermacher urteilt (p. 36) vor dem III 
Jh. v. Chr. dirfte das Projmium schwerlich entstanden sein; er 
denkt also wohl an die altere asianische Schule und zieht daher 
Hegesias zum Vergleich heran. Hs lasst sich aber aus dem Stil 
beweisen, dass das Proémium ein Product der Zweiten Sophistik 
ist. ΑΒ ἃ matter of fact if one reads Norden’s description of this 
ailtere asianische Schule he will think Radermacher has good 
grounds for his conviction. But Norden’s criticism of Rader- 
macher is apparently not merely a correction of the term “ asian- 
isch.” He would relegate the proemium to the time when the 
chase excited an interest such as we find in Arrian and Pollux, 
Surely however if that is the case it is remarkable that Arrian 
accepts the Proem as Xenophon’s. He would hardly have done 


1K. Norden, Antike Kunstprosa, Leipzig 1898. 
2Vit. Soph. I, 18, 507. 


THE CYNEGETICUS. 9 


80 had the author been within a generation or so of his time, for 
he must have made some mark as the precursor of the New 
Style’. 

On the other hand what Norden has to say of the early Asiatics 
is more to the point here. “In their moods of soft, empty pathos 
they broke up periods into short mincing sentences; every sen- 
tence had a strongly rhythmical cadence, clauses with ditrochee 

+v εὖ being an especial favourite and «v~>~v, a form much 
affected later.” He adds that Asianism linked itself to old 
Sophistic Kunstprosa; further, “in their moments of bombast 
they displayed a bacchantic, dithyrambic prose with the watch- 
word of Caprice as Law Supreme.” 

In a series of articles that dwelt with the minor works 
of Xenophon, H. Richards? has endeavoured to establish the 
authenticity or spuriousness of sundry of the writings of Xenophon 
from an exhaustive analysis of the diction. In the case of the 
Cynegeticus he says: “The facts of language that tell against a 
Xn. authorship are negative rather than positive.” He takes 
Cyn. I-XI to be genuine work of Xenophon. In XII and XIII 
various things point to Xenophon as the author and there is 
nothing that points the other way. “The preface is dithyrambic 
in tone and poetic in expression (cp. ΟἹ. Rev. 1899, p. 347, col. 2), 
but there is nothing in the vocabulary that is inconsistent with 
Xenophontine authorship.” In Cl. Rev. 1899 p. 383 he makes 
some critical notes on the Cynegeticus which may prove useful to 
anyone editing the text but which do not concern us at present.° 

The foregoing writers are representative of the school of partial 
-athetesis. Their methods have naturally points of contact with 
the other lines of investigation we are now about to consider, but 
for practical purposes the distinction is warranted by their 
‘several conclusions. So far the manner of our author has been 
considered; the contents of the work and the style of composi- 
tion, granting that after Gorgias matters of style in Greek Litera- 
ture are thoroughly artificial, intentional and therefore capable 
-of statistical analysis, afford opportunity:for a more material, 


1Compare Norden, p. 407f. Gratius’ Carmen Venaticum shows an ac- 
quaintance with the Cynegeticus, yet it would be straining a point to see 
an allusion to our proem in the opening address to Diana. 

3 Classical Review 1898, pp. 285, 383. 1899, pp. 198, 342. 

3 A similar remark applies to the article of van Herwerden, Mnemosyne 
N. 8. XXIII, 1895. 


Io THE CYNEGETICUS. 


more scientifically tangible, investigation. The application of 
comparative philosophy to the matter of the Cynegeticus is found 
in the writings of Kaibel, Diimmler and Joél’. 

G. Kaibel’ begins by insisting on the versatility of Xenophon, 
the diversity of the subjects on which he writes, and his adapt- 
iveness to their sphere, his close connection with contemporary 
literature and his susceptibility to external suggestion. While 
admitting that the substance and the form of the treatise (in 
entirety) are surprising, conforming but little to the picture one 
has of Xenophon’s manner of thought and expression, he denies 
the probability of a careless interpolator on the grounds of the: 
harmony between the material and the linguistic mould in which 
it is cast. That it is the product of a youthful Xenophon is 
improbable from the words παραινῷ τοῖς νέοις, and also the poor 
facilities for experience in hunting afforded by Attica possessed 
by enemies’. 4 

The Cynegeticus is primarily an encomium on the chase; not a 
technical treatise like the περὶ ἱππικῆς, but rather analogous to 
the Οἰκονομικός, Which is interpreted as an encomium on agri- 
culture. It is also a defence of the chase against the attacks of 
its opponents, and it is out of “this defence, the conclusion and 
perhaps the most noteworthy part of the book, that there is 
evolved an independent attack to which the chase but serves as 
an accommodating bridge.” The objection to the devotees of the 
chase is really that the hardy hunters are a menace to ἡδονή.. 
The contrast set up between ἡδονή and πόνος would alone suffice 
to reveal Aristippus as the opponent engaged. ‘To Xenophon the: 
θέλειν πονεῖν is the way to virtue, the proof of which, neither 
very clear nor very deep, goes hand in hand with the Prodicus 
chapter directed against Aristippus in Memorabilia IT 1. 

Turning to the introduction Kaibel finds that the colourless. 
sketching of the heroes no less than the lack of variety of inven- 
tion, hints at want of practice on the author’s part, but the tone 
and impress of the whole section does not to his mind fall far 
short of Isocrates’ manner, e.g. in Panath. 72. The position of 
Cheiron with his twenty-one pupils is an advance on that 


1It 15. ἃ matter for regret that Gomperz or some Philosopher conversant. 
with the Hippocratean Corpus has not treated the Cyn. comparatively. 

2Hermes XXV 1890, p. 581 f. 

3A point more than once insisted on by Mahaffy, himself no mean 
sportsman. 


THE CYNEGETICUS. II 


accorded him by Homer, where he is δικαιότατος Κενταύρων, OF ON 
his presentation as the huntsman, as plastic art of the VIth cen- 
tury represented him. The aim of Cheironian education is 
Virtue, the medium of education Toil and Work. Here, too, 
Xenophon is limited by an influence from without. Antisthenes’ 
Herakles' shows a surprising similarity to the introduction to 
the Cynegeticus; in it Antisthenes wished to demonstrate the 
theme τὸ κατ᾽ ἀρετὴν ζῆν is the τέλος, making use also of the 
theme ὅτι ὁ πόνος ἀγαθόν. The theme was worked out in his 
Great Herakles. By not borrowing mechanically for his cata- 
logue of heroic pupils Xenophon protests against Antisthenes’ 
interpretation of the Homeric δικαιότατος Κενταύρων. Xenophon has 
no place for Herakles the Hero of Cynic Doctrine; he would 
not have put him among the pupils of Cheiron even if the legend 
had already admitted him in that circle. Kaibel touches on the 
possibility of Antisthenes’ having introduced a Φρόνησις in per- 
son; this would lend poignancy to the ironical thrust in Plato 
Phaedr. 250 ἃ, and Xenophon’s intent in maintaining that ’Apern’ 
become human would be like the Loved One before whose eyes 
the Lover is bashful about doing or saying anything ugly, would 
be to fight Aristippus with Antisthenes’ weapons, at the same 
time not sparing criticism of his fellow scholar. 

This being so, Kaibel continues, the work was not written by 
Xenophon in his early days, nor in the Vth century at all. The 
attack on the sophists in chap. XIII is directed against the 
sophists of the Gorgianic school and, combined with them, cer- 
tain philosophers, the false in contrast to the true philosophers. 
Isocrates περὶ ἀντιδόσεως 18 similar. ‘The μάταια censured by 
Xenophon (Cyn. XIII 2) may well be identical with the μάταιοι 
λόγοι Of Isocrates XV. 269. To obtain a wordy commentary on 
the few sentences of Xenophon one has but to write out the half 
Οὗ the Antidosis oration. 

After the attack on the Hedonists and sophists, Xenophon com- 
pares hunters and τοὺς ἐπὶ πλεονεξίας εἰκῆ ἰόντας, the politicians 
who turn their public activity to their own advantage. The 
fact that a strained transition from the sophists to these people 
who are ruined by their influence is considered sufficient, points 
to Isocrates XV 274 being already in the author’s mind. Iso- 
crates in a similar train of thought comes quite naturally to the 
same sentiments. Kaibel then compares the method of treatment 


1Diimmler, Akademika, p. 192. 2Cyn. XII 19, 20. 


12 THE CYNEGETICUS. 


adopted by Xenophon and Isocrates, and concludes: “This cor- 
respondence of thoughts which are as simple and natural in Iso- 
crates as in Xenophon they are forced and artificially introduced,. 
I can only interpret in one way, that Xenophon was*under the 
influence of the Antidosis speech and in consequence could not. 
have written the Cynegeticus before 353 B. C.” 

The genuine relations between Xenophon and Isocrates are: 
now touched upon. The warning of Isocrates in XV not to treat 
him as a second Socrates could not fail to attract Xenophon’s 
attention. The intellectual kinship, the bent towards philosophy 
as they understood it, the respect for ἀρετή and πόνος, certain 
national political views held in common must bring the two men 
together, and Isocrates would hardly have written a memorial 
oration on Gryllus after the battle of Mantineia if the father of 
the young hero were indifferent to him. Xenophon in his later 
writings takes over isolated expressions of a general nature from‘. 
Isocrates with little alteration; the Agesilaus and the Evagoras 
show points of connection. So Πόροι shows the influence of 
περὶ εἰρήνης.ἢ 

Diimmler’ agrees with Kaibel that the Cynegeticus is ἃ genu- 
ine work of Xenophon, but takes exception to his finding of an 
opposition to Antisthenes on his part. The most important work: 
however that has recently appeared treating the Cynegeticus 
from the Philosophic side is that of Joél,? whose second volume: 


1JIn this connection one might with propriety quote the conclusion of J. J. 
Hartman in his brief chapter on the Cynegeticus (Analecta Xenophontea 
nova, 1889, ch. XV, p. 351). Non Xenophon libri auctor est sed ’Iooxpa- 
τιδεύς Quidam qui arroganter et rixantis in modum loqui a magistro suo» 
didicit. An improbabile videtur eiusmodi puerum in Isocratis alicuius. 
sinu educatum venationis fuisse peritum? Sed peritum re vera eum fuisse 
quis unquam demonstrabit? Venatoresne? At pauci illi sunt inter philo- 
logos..... This criticism is doubtless legitimate from the European 
point of view where such sport is conventional, and is in the attitude of 
Plato who regarded riding to hounds alone as worthy of a gentleman. But 
in the less conventional hunting of our backwoods, where ‘any old dog’ 
will do for deer running provided he follows the standard laid down in the- 
Cynegeticus, we get many points of contact with the sport depicted by our 
rebellious author, and just as quaintly humorous stories of the ways of 
the animals, just as unintelligible directions for the making of traps ac-. 
companied by obvious directions for their setting. 

2¥F. Diimmler, Philol. L 1891 p. 288. 

8 Der echte und der Xenophontische Sokrates von Karl Joél, Berlin 1893,. 
vol. II Berlin 1901. 


THE CYNEGETICUS. | 13 


is dedicated to the memory of Dimmler. 1118 theory is that with- 
out an understanding of Antisthenes we fail to understand 
Plato’s opponent and Xenophon’s original. The use Joél makes 
of the Cynegeticus in his endeavour to elucidate Cynic doctrine 
may be surmised from the fact that in his first volume he refers 
over forty times to that treatise for support to his argument, 
while in his second volume more than 260 references may be 
counted, extending to every chapter in the book, although 
naturally the first and the two concluding chapters occupy his 
-attention most. He considers the Cynegeticus as we have it the 
work of one man, and that man Xenophon. Critics, he allows, 
have doubted the authenticity of the Cynegeticus and especially 
that of the two concluding chapters, utterly blind to the fact that 
in the entire Xenophontean corpus there is almost no passage so 
personally characteristic, “‘so subjectiv grundlegend, so confes- 
‘sionsmissig,” as chapters XII and XIII of the Cynegeticus 
(I p. 68). In I 418 Joél touches on the attitude towards 
Palamedes in Cyn. I 11, and in Mem. IV 2,33 ff. In the former 
Xenophon is recognized as being more independent, in the latter 
as dependent on Cynic sources. In I 511, 512, 530, Joél treats of 
ἐπιμέλεια, ἄσκησις, πόνος, drawing attention (p. 512) to the worship 
of: Heroic Chivalry in Antisthenes, which is interesting in view 
of Cyn. I. 

On Antisthenes Joél (vol. II p.53) remarks: To the champion 
of ἰσχύς and ἀρετὴ τῶν ἔργων, haunted perhaps by the hunting 
instincts of his mother’s country as by a romantic dream, it was 
not hard to recommend the chase not merely on hygienic and 
gymnastic grounds, but also precisely as a training towards 
ἐγκράτεια ANG καρτερία. The Cynic (p. 57) led from παιδεία to ἀρχή 
through ἐγκράτεια, the Cynic Cyropaedia from hunting to κρατεῖν 
through the same medium; similar are the tenets of the frame in 
which the Cynegeticus is set, where Xenophon professes the 
ἐνθυμήματα Of the Cynic φιλόσοφοι although later viewing them 
more critically, and enthusiastically follows the Herakles of 
Antisthenes in praise of the παιδεία of Cheiron, of πόνος, even as in 
the discrimination between φίλοι and ἀντίπαλοι (ἐχθροί Cyn. XILf. 


1One might quote Th. Gomperz, Griechische Denker II p. 96: Ein 
Fachmann war Xenophon in sportlichen Dingen, als Jager und Reiter, und 
die drei Schriftchen, welche er diesen seinen Lieblingsthemen widmete (das 
‘‘Jagd’’ und das ““ Reitbuch”’ und das Buch ‘‘ Vom Reiteroberst’’), gehdéren 
in der That zu dem Besten, das aus seiner Feder geflossen ist. 


Ε bc " εζ 
Ν᾿ Cf @ 2 oe νὼ 


14 THE CYNEGETICUS. 


Diog. Laert. Diogenes VI 11 f. 105), a differentiation which is 
best understood by comparison with dogs. 

Joél (II 67) considers that it shows the utterly hypnotic 
influence of the Cynic that the sport-loving Xenophon does not 
squarely declare hunting to be an end in itself, but defends his 
passionate devotion to the chase on paedagogic grounds. In 
keeping with the theory of Mem. III 4, 12 is the remarkable 
refutation in the Cynegeticus of the objection that huntsmen 
neglect τὰ οἰκεῖα; but, runs the answer, the οἰκεῖα and the πολιτικά 
(κοινὰ τὰ τῶν φίλων 1) are identical as interests, and the identity of 
the economic and martial calling had already been developed by 
Antisthenes in the case of the κύων who is at once watchdog and 
hound (II 70, 71). 

On p. 105 we have citations to show that πόνος is the all- 
dominating motive in the Cynegeticus, the treatise dependent on 
the Herakles of Antisthenes; Cyn. XII* is wrongly athetised ~ 
owing to misconception of Cynic education and Xenophon’s 
nature. One might almost infer (from p. 110 ff.) that the Cyne- 
geticus had for its motive φιλοπονία, the Cyropaedia and Oeconom- 
icus ἐπιμέλεια. On p. 302 he touches on the Antisthenic Herakles 
being devoted to the praise of πόνος and the struggle against 
Cyrenaic ἡδονή (cp. p.501 anm.). This supports Kaibel’s view of 
the Cynegeticus. In tracing’ the connection between Xenophon’s 
Cynegeticus and Antisthenes’ Herakles he maintains that the 
epilogue of the former is without connection except as interpreted 
through the latter. He also alludes to the figure of Arete 
incarnate. 

In view of the last section of Cyn. XIII where women also are 
partakers of the gift of the chase, it is worthy of note that the 
“Antisthenic Protagoras” preached to women also, and that 
Antisthenes moreover said (Diog. Laert. VI12): ἀνδρὸς καὶ γυναικὸς 
ἡ αὐτὴ ἀρετὴ, ANd ἡ γυναικεία φύσις οὐδὲν χείρων τῆς τοῦ ἀνδρὸς οὖσα 
τυγχάνε. The Antisthenic theories on the value of good stock are 
treated on p. 360. The author of the Cynegeticus insisted on 
purity in the breed of hounds, and the dog afforded a simile ready 
at hand to the Cynic. Even Diogenes used to take his pupils 
out hunting (Diog. Laert. VI 31). 

The language of the Antiphon fragment in Iamblichus is 
worth studying (pp. 674, 690). The occurrence of dy-privative, 


1¥For the value of πόνοι and Cyn. XII see Joél pp. 378, 382. 
2P, 297. 


THE CYNEGETICUS: Πὰς 


of compounds in εὐ- and φιλο- and of substantives in -pa is notice- 
able also in the Cynegeticus. Joél would have the Antiphon 
fragment to be the work of Antisthenes and draws attention to 
its correspondence with passages in Cyn. XIT, XIII. 

On Mem. III 11 Joél remarks: “,.. und nun wird die 
Hasenjagd in einer Weise als Vorbild gepriesen und genau be- 
schrieben, dass man die Freude und die helfende Hand des Autors 
des Cynegeticus und des praktischen Waidmanns Xenophon 
spurt... Der Jagdhund fiir Freunde: das ist der Gegenstand 
dieses Capitels, wie der Wachterhund gegen Feinde der gegen- 
stand von Mem. II, 9, und das sind ja die zwei Seiten des 
Kynischen Ideals.” 

Associated as he has been. with Usener in the editing of 
Dionysius of Halicarnassus, and himself the editor of Demetrius, 
De Elocutione, Radermacher is a fitting representative of the 
Stylistic criticism of the Cynegeticus. His article’ shows all the 
acumen of one intimate with the Greek Rhetoricians and modern 
methods of statistic. Whether this combination is ultimately 
capable of producing a scientific criterion one may not yet 
determine. Dionysius himself in deciding the genuineness of a 
Lysian writing leaves final decision to an undefined aestheticism. 

To Radermacher the defenders of the genuineness of the 
Cynegeticus are apparently in a numerica] majority, only some 
regard the book on linguistic grounds as a youthful writing of 
Xenophon, while to others inherent features point to the author 
being a mature man. Already cited as Xenophon’s by Plutarch 
(Mor. 1096 0), no one in antiquity seems to have expressed doubt 
of the genuineness of the book. The testimony of Tryphon 
(Athenaeus 400 a), and the fact of the treatise being included in 
the corpus of Xenophon’s works in the Alexandrian Library is 
recalled. Since Valckenaer’s time the grounds of all considera- 
tions have been essentially based on linguistic and stylistic 
phenomena, while the practical objections have been mostly of an 
indefinite and general kind. 

Leaving aside the Proemium for later consideration, Rader- 
macher commences with an analysis of the sentence construction. 
The author is representative of the λέξις εἰρομένη. Parataxis is 
preferred as against Hypotaxis; so much so that the balance of 
the clauses often results in ambiguity. Partiality for parentheti- 
cal accretions is manifested in the striving after tabulation of 


1L. Radermacher, Rhein. Mus. LI, 1896, p. 596; LII, 1897, p. 13. 


τό THE CYNEGETICUS. 


ideas. His participial constructions are a token of the stylistic 
trend of the author. Xenophon’s manner is contrasted, especi- 
ally in the technical treatises. Again in the Cynegeticus paral- 
lelism of the members of a sentence lead of necessity to Homoi- 
oteleuta that could hardly be avoided. They are not to be 
recognized as a definite striving after Gorgianic art. A Parisosis 
that really strikes the ear occurs only in XII 13. 

With the author of the Cynegeticus Antithesis with Chiastic 
arrangement of words forms almost a mannerism; a noticeable 
peculiarity is his predilection for Asyndeta and Appositional 
construction ; similarly an impression of alertness and pregnancy 
is conveyed by the Infinitive for the Imperative; a seeking for 
brevity is also betrayed by his σχήματα ἀπὸ κοινοῦ; In chapter Va 
remarkable vacillation between the generic singular and plural 
is noticed by Rosenstiel; the occurrence of such phenomena 
throughout the book precludes the theory of interpolation; » 
rather are we to think of a negligent or unpractised stylist. 
Xenophon’s use of figures is contrasted. Anaphora, common in 
Xenophon, occurs twice in the Cynegeticus. Chiasm is rare in 
Xenophon, whose use of Asyndeton is also moderate. His 
expansiveness does not lead one to expect elliptical expressions. 
He has made as rich use of tropes as of figures.’ 

The Cynegeticus is poor in connectives, but Radermacher does 
not insist on this point as Roquette’ finds the same criticism true 
of the commencement of the Hellenica, and on that ground 
assigns both to Xenophon’s youth. 

The plea’ of the Cynegeticus being an encomium and therefore 
showing a differentiation in style is according to Radermacher 
not well taken. He holds that the unity of the style which is 
characteristic enough excludes the idea of a revision of a genuine 
work of Xenophon—it could only be a case of complete recon- 
struction. The arrangement of the book is not strikingly bad; it 
is not improved by the excision of minor portions. There are two 
probabilities: either the book originated in a time when Xeno- 
phon wrote in a style differing from that of the rest of his writ- 
ings, or it is spurious. 

In the former case the development must have been marvellous. 
The treatise shows numerous, often signal divergencies from 


18chacht, De Xen. studiis rhetoricis, Diss. Berl. 1889. 

2Roquette, De Xen. vita, 1884. He holds that the Cyn. was written at 
Athens before 401— prob. in 402 (p. 52). 

3 Kaibel’s. 


THE CYNEGETICUS. 17 


Xenophon’s usage. Radermacher investigates concisely the use 
of words in the Cynegeticus. He notices a striking mixture of 
poetic and vulgar words which one could hardly ascribe to 
Xenophon; some of these recur in un-Attic prose. The number 
of compound words is also noticeable. A comparison is 
instituted with Xenophon’s writings. The Infinitive-imperative 
is common in medical treatises of the time, but not in Xenophon ; 
the use of the accusative of terminus ad quem, of transitive verbs 
as intransitive, occasionally the use of prepositions calls for 
comment.’ While in Syntax generally the Cynegeticus shows no 
important deviations from the language of the IVth century, the 
usage of words is often vulgar and to be met with in the κοινή» 
and on the whole there is enough material to warrant an athetesis 
of the work. The manner of expression seems in many instances 
borrowed from the language of the people; some syntactical 
peculiarities may be derived from the same source. It differs 
distinctly from the language and style of Xenophon. 

After thus treating of the Grammatica, Radermacher intro- 
duces other criteria for the genuineness or spuriousness of the 
book. Greece proper today contains no bears. Brehm (Thier- 
leben II p. 215) to the contrary. Heuzey denies their presence 
in the vicinity of Olympus and Hirschfeld in Arcadia. They 
must be admitted to exist in the Balkans. Aristotle’s informa- 
tion as to bears refers to the Balkans and Asia Minor. ‘To the 
author of Cyn. XI 1, they were ἐν ξέναις χώραις. In the vicinity 
where the hunting treatise originated’ there were no bears. That 
vicinity was on the coast. The author knew islands where there 
was excellent hare hunting, probably the Cyclades. There is 
nothing against Attica as the home of the author. The law 
against νυκτερευταί (XII 6) is certainly fictitious, although Plato 
(νόμοι 8244) contains a similar allusion, and Isocrates (Areop. 148 6) 
recognises that in ancient Athens hunting played an important 
part in the education of the young. 

The author’s personality is defined more precisely than his 
home. He is proud of being ἰδιώτης and has a poor opinion of 
πολιτικοί. yet considers it the highest duty for the citizen to be of 
use to his country. Work alone leads to’ Virtue, hence the value 
of hunting. The pleasure-seeker is neither wise nor useful. 


1But cp. Dionysius Hal. Ep. II ad Ammaeum 7, and generally for marks 
of Thuc., i. e. early, prose style. 
2 That is of course the treatise in its present form. 


18 THE CYNEGETICUS. 


The author knows his shortcomings as a writer. He pays tribute 
to the ideals of the philosophers but attacks the sophists fiercely. 
While an ἀνὴρ ἐρωτικός he is a pious man. He has a touch of 
superstition as has every true Waidmann. He is not a partic- 
ularly prominent man. He knows not the aristocratic riding 
to hounds which alone was recommended by Plato. Xenophon 
on the other hand was a noted horseman, and his Cyrus hunts 
hares and lions on horseback. While allowing the value of the 
chase as an education, Xenophon does not see the foundation of 
all ἀρετή in hare hunting. About the year 400 the theme of 
hunting was more exploited than we generally recognise. The 
education of the young was also prominently discussed at this 
time. In Rep. 535d* Diimmler has good grounds for seeing ἃ 
reference to, a stricture on, Antisthenes, with whom πόνος alone 
led to ἀρετή, and who wrote a Herakles in which Cheiron played 
an important part. There is no necessity to see a reference to ἡ 
Xenophon also. In Cyn. XII 10 (λέγουσι δέ τινες ὡς ob χρὴ ἐρᾶν κυνη- 
yeoiov) Aristippus in all probability is meant, as Kaibel conjec- 
tures. Thechase afforded a common topic among those interested 
in education. | 

From certain other considerations Radermacher is enabled to 
date the treatise more exactly. In chap. XIII γνώμη is synony- 
mous with νόημα and ἐνθύμημα, 18 opposed ἴο ὄνομα. γνώμη as opposed 
to ὄνομα is impossible after Aristotle or perhaps even after Isoc- 
rates (Arist. Rhet. 1394a). The particular use of the word 
γνώμη Speaks for the antiquity of chap. XIII; antiquity is also 
demanded by the context. The author has more in mind than a 
description of the apparatus for hunting. Not being an encomium 
the Cynegeticus does not stop at the XIIth chapter. The point 
at issue is the education of the young. In maintaining the thesis 
that ἀρετή is the object of education, that the path to ἀρετή is 
through πόνος, and that therefore hunting is an especially excel- 
lent means of education, he must necessarily protest against his 
opponents. The contrast between hunters and πολιτικοί leads to 
a recommendation of hunting as an education. 

Containing as it does detailed instructions for the practice of 
the chase, and insisting on the importance of the chase for moral 


Ἱπρῶτον μὲν εἶπον φιλοπονίᾳ ov χωλὸν δεῖ εἶναι τὸν ἁψόμενον, τὰ μὲν ἡμίσεα 
φιλόπονον τὰ δὲ ἡμίσεα ἄπονον ἔστι δὲ τοῦτο, ὅταν τις φιλογυμναστὴς μὲν καὶ φιλό- 
θηρος ἢ καὶ πάντα τὰ διὰ τοῦ σώματος φιλοπονῇ, φιλομαθὴς δὲ μὴ μηδὲ φιλήκοος μηδὲ 
ζητητικὸς ἀλλ᾽ ἐν πᾶσι τούτοις μισοπονῇ. 


THE CYNEGETICUS. 19 


and athletic education, the treatise constitutes a whole, and 
(chap. II to chap. XIII) is to be assigned to one author. It is 
unlikely that Xenophon as a young man of at most twenty-eight 
years could write the treatise, nor could one still be νέος when he 
dictates with such confidence to those who are no longer boys but 
young men. Xenophon’s polemic is never wounding. If the 
attacks on the sophists are due to iuvenilis ardor Xenophon must. 
have been a very unpleasant young man. 

In the Cynegeticus φιλόσοφος and σοφιστής are sharply differen- 
tiated. Radermacher, proceeding from von Wilamowitz (Aus 
Kydathen, p. 215), concludes that Plato is responsible for the 
distinction, σοφιστής being the general term and φιλόσοφος and 
σοφιστής having a fundamental difference only to a narrow circle 
to which Xenophon did not belong. It is only in his latest pro- 
duction, πόροι (V 4), that Xenophon introduces φιλόσοφοι and σοφισ- 
rai side by side in mentioning various callings. That Xenophon 
should make the distinction in his earliest writings and neglect 
it in the Anabasis, Cyropaedia, Symposium and Memorabilia is 
subversive of all historical principles. 

If Xenophon had actually composed the Cynegeticus as a 
young man, he would have the honour of having created the word 
σοφιστικός. Rather it is an invention of Plato which occurs in 
the Gorgias with other formations in -ἰκός, and is much used in 
Platonic writings as opposed to σοφός. One understands Cyn. 
XIII 7 only by comparison with Plato Soph. 268b. The writer 
of the Cynegeticus was under the actual influence of Platonic 
Doctrine. The Hunting Treatise cannot be a youthful pro- 
duction of Xenophon, and it stands formally in most decided 
contrast to his later writings. Radermacher therefore concludes 
that Xenophon is not its author. 

Hipparch. I 1, Cyn. II 1; XII 1, Apol. VI; Cyn. XIII 2, 
Mem. II 7,3; Cyn. XII 5, Cyrup. I 6, 37, bear on the whole too 
external a resemblance to draw conclusions from. Just as hazard- 
ous is it to build on references to Isocrates—the opinions are 
hardly original with Isocrates, and the formal similarity is 
unimportant. The attack on the sophists has only point fora 
period when there were still sophists in Plato’s sense of the word. 
To the sophists of the Hunting Treatise cultivation in rhetoric 
is but secondary, they are primarily occupied with other scien- 
tific problems (Cyn. XIIT 2). The treatise in its latter part as 
Kaibel notices is strongly influenced by Cynic Doctrine. He has 


20 THE CYNEGETICUS. 

᾿ 

rendered direct reference to Antisthenes probable. Taking all 

in all we arrive at the first half of the 1Vth century. Theo- 

ΓΡΗΦ apparently knew the work (de plant. Χ 20. 4, Cyn. V 
1-5; de plant. XI 5. 6, Cyn. VIII 1). 

Having thus determined on the date and decided on the spuri- 
ousness of the Cynegeticus (II to XIII), Radermacher investi- 
gates the Proemium (I 1-17). Arrian knew the proem, Philo- 
stratus doubtless made use of it in Heroicus X. On grammatical 
and linguistic grounds there is nothing to force us to set its 
origin in a later time. The construction of the sentence is 
simple. Hiatus is not suppressed more than otherwise in the 
Cynegeticus. Instances occur of Asyndeton, Chiasmus, Ana- 
phora, Paronomasia, Homoeoteleuta, of Antithesis, Zeugma, 
Parenthesis. Simplicity of expression, however, is decidedly 
sought after. The rest of the treatise is compared. 

As regards the peculiarly rhythmical form: the ends of the 
cola are carefully constructed, the ditrochee, especially beloved 
by Asianic rhetoric, is conspicuous, 26 or 27 examples; Rader- 
macher adds a table of feet employed. Aristotle only recom- 
mended rhythmical form for the beginning and end of the period ; 
it was apparently only later rhetoricians that attempted to 
extend rhythmical forms throughout in colon and period. It is 
a peculiarity of Asianic style to employ rhythms conspicuously 
in prose. In this the Proemium is no exception. The order in 
which the heroes are introduced is due to a desire for rhythm. 
The form of the Aeneas legend is no criterion for age as the 
argumentum ex silentio is questionable. The account of Pala- 
medes is opposed to that in Xenophon Mem. IV 2, 33. The 
proem of the Cynegeticus is nothing else than a masterpiece of 
rhetorical imposture like those demanded by Dionysins of Hali-— 
carnassus (de Dem. 1094). To ascribe it to the worthy that 
wrote the remaining chapters would be a blund-r. Long before 
the appearance of Usener’s Gétternamen (p. 158) Radermacher 
had concluded that we have here a genuine piece of Asianic 
eloquence. This Epideixis can hardly have originated before 
the IIId century B.c. Its author had inserted ὧν ἐπεμνήσθην In 
XII 18. In short: die gespreizte Ausdriicksweise, die Kihn- 
heit der Wortstellung, die auffallenden Kolenschliisse, die Rhyth- 
men, endlich die kecke Mythengestaltung—sollte das nicht 
Rhetorik und zwar eigenartige Rhetorik sein ? 


*K * * * * 


21 


In reviewing the evidence offered in the foregoing articles, I 
am inclined to take the following view. While allowing that 
Rosenstiel is right in recognising the Cynegeticus as a scholastic 
treatise written for boys, I cannot accept as proved his idea that 
the circle for whom it was composed consisted of Xenophon’s 
sons and their companions. Rather than with Lincke find in the 
author a schoolboy still at his exercises, I would consider him a 
man who understands boys and assumes their ethos. Moreover I 
think one is justified in regarding the Cynegeticus as we have it 
as the work of one man, who however compiled from practical 
and theoretic sources the various divisions of his book. There is 
nothing to prove that these sources were not written prior to 
Xenophon’s activity as an author, while there is much to show 
that Xenophon in other writings is a plagiarist. It is not neces- 
sary to suppose that compiling a treatise somewhat of the order 
of a school program, albeit a program of a new school, must have 
left traces of its style in more mature work. On the other hand 
the department of venery is likely to induce a sympathetic 
author to cast his work in a language and ethos suitable to the 
occasion ; the occasion not being repeated the treatise remains an 
isolated instance of a potential department of literature. On no 
other occasion does Xenophon allude to hunting at sufficient 
length to warrant the introduction of a cynegetic mannerism 
that would necessarily appear grotesque in another environment. 
As antiquity decided that the work was Xenophon’s we may not 
on the existing evidence assert positively the contrary unless we 
can also assert that Xenophon as a young man could not have 
brought himself to reproduce or recast the work of predecessors. 

In the matter of date I am inclined to place the Cynegeticus in 
its entirety earlier than Radermacher would allow. It is not 
necessary to wait for the Gorgias to create the word σοφιστικός. 
Words in -ικός were a mannerism as early as 424 B. Co. when 
Aristophanes in the Equites (1358 follg.) ridiculed the affecta- 
tion. It is significant that this arch humorist suggests the 
remedy (1382) μὰ A’? add’ ἀναγκάσω κυνηγετεῖν ἐγὼ τούτους ἅπαντας. SO 
‘too the differentiation of Sophist and Philosopher may have been a 
transient phase of Xenophon’s intellect. Men drift apart from 
the philosophy they ardently espouse as young men before world- 
liness makes them practical. The argument that later on 
Xenophon does not appear to have been in the inner Platonic 
-circle, does not preclude him from once having imbibed influence 


22 THE CYNEGETICUS. 


from a common source, and made a point of the distinction be- 
tween the terms. To the practical man with “the dust of 
campaigns still on him” the distinction may not have appealed 
in the years of discretion. I doubt if such would appeal with 
sufficient force in the present day to convert a military writer of 
occasion, a contributor say to a popular magazine, into a purist. 
or a pedant. Radermacher makes a point when he remarks 
that Chap. XIII is early because the use of γνώμη as opposed to. 
ὄνομα is impossible after Aristotle, perhaps after Isocrates. On 
the other hand when considering Kaibel’s views of the depend- 
ence of the Cynegeticus upon Isocrates we may not neglect the- 
fact that Isocrates’ method of maturing his own work and 
elaborating the thoughts of others makes him no sound criterion 
for a terminus ante quem non. Be it observed too that the- 
attack on Hedone in the Cynegeticus leaves unnoticed the tran- 


scendental interpretation of Hedone in [Isocrates]ad Demonicum. © 


On the modern method of arguing therefore the conclusion of 
the Cynegeticus was written before that paraenesis. Sandys 
appears to have good grounds for dating the ad Demonicum before 
the commencement of the [Vth century. Both works readily 
lend themselves to the office of a school program. Both have a 
touch of Cynic influence, an almost necessary symptom in educa- 
tional matters at the close of the Vth century. On the other 
hand the similarity between the motif of the Cynegeticus and 
that of Antisthenes’ work may be due to the Northern origin of 
both, but this is to anticipate. 

I hold there are some grounds for considering that one of the. 
most considerable sources from which the writer of the Cyne-. 
geticus drew was a work on hunting or perhaps merely natural 
history written in the North, possibly in Thrace but more likely 
in Macedonia. When one thinks of Protagoras and Democritus 
one need not be surprised at educational movements coming from. 
the North. We are prepared by Aristophanes in the Nubes 
(B. c. 423) to look for a new movement in education—nothing- 
less than seminary methods applied to biological investigation.. 
A passage in Aelian points to the North as the field of such inves-. 
tigation. We read (V. H. IV, 19) that Aristotle owed his oppor- 
tunity for biological study to Philip of Macedon. Aristophanes 
has already assured us that the experimental science of the- 
“ Melian” Socrates was not a natural or congenial growth in 
Attica. Joél maintains that under the Socrates figure Aristoph-- 


THE CYNEGETICUS. 23 


anes ridiculed Antisthenes. Now Antisthenes’ mother is said to 
have been a Thracian. In the popular parlance of the day that 
term might be translated “ Biddy.” Had the lady in question 
been any Northcountry woman the gibe would have been irre- 
sistible to an opponent. Joél further maintains that Antisthenes 
derived his impetus towards the introduction of athleticism into 
education from the hunting blood of his Northern forefathers. 
Such considerations confirmed my expectations of a Northern 
origin of the Cynegeticus, and I shall endeavour to support my 
hypothesis on internal evidence. 

Meanwhile one more point requires some attention. Possibly 
because it can readily be detached from the rest of the book 
without materially injuring the contents thereof the proem has 
fallen a prey to the athetiser without much sympathy. Rader- 
macher sees nothing in the linguistic to point to a date later than 
that of the rest of the manual. On rhythmical grounds however © 
he feels justified in assigning a comparatively late date to its 
production. 1 would like to suggest that from one point of view 
it is eminently fitting as an introduction to the treatise, that is 
the point of view of an educationalist of the latter part of the 
Vth century. I have elsewhere—in a paper read before the 
Classical Club of Philadelphia—endeavoured to show that the 
Cheiron figure of education gave before the Socrates figure. On 
this supposition the proem of the Cynegeticus is only suitable 
when athleticism was a new movement in education, i. e. when 
the effects of the plague at Athens on the physique of the rising 
generation were alarming the educationalists of Attica. The 
dithyrambic effect of the prose is suited to the surroundings of 
the original treatise if such emanated from the North. The 
versification noticed may be unconsciously due to the theme, or 
it may be an art that did not conform to the Attic standard; why 
᾿ ὃ piece of prose written elsewhere should so conform is not 
evident. 

Interesting as it might be, one may not compare the Pseudo- 
Xenophontean Resp. Ath. with the Cynegeticus simply because 
both may be early prose. The former is written by a man of the 
world blasé as a London Oxonian and full of blague as any 
Athenian, while the Cynegeticus is written by a non-conformist, 
to whom recognition has not yet come. He does not yet own a 
hunter. 


24 THE CYNEGETICUS. 


With these preliminary remarks I shall turn to the question of 
possible allusion to the Cynegeticus in Classical Greek, and to 
the internal evidence for an origin in the North. 

* * aes * 


Kaibel has already brought to notice the parallelism between 
Oyn. XIII and Isocrates XV, περὶ ἀντιδόσεως. He held that the 
former is unintelligible without the explanations in the latter. 
Radermacher can interpret Cyn. XIII 7 only by comparison with 
Plato, Soph. 268b. We may not however decide that a Greek 
needed the periphrasis of Isocrates or the lucidity of Plato; as 
well might we conclude that Aeschylus and Pindar were unin- 
telligible until Protagoras began syntax. Isocrates cannot be 
relied upon in establishing dates. His method of maturing his 
writings for long years before publication, his acknowledged 
tendency to repeat extracts from his former essays, his very 
position as teacher of epideictic commonplaces precludes us from 
giving unqualified admission to his evidence. We dare not allow 
moreover that a master of expression like Isocrates would be 
incapable of recasting an apophthegm, even a crude one, into a 
rounded period. | 

After all, where a work contains no specific allusions to matters — 
of history the only satisfactory means of dating its production 
short of a definite statement of a contemporary authority is 
allusion to its contents. If considerations lead us to suppose 
with Radermacher that the Cynegeticus had already been pub- 
lished before the end of the first quarter of the [Vth century, we 
cannot wait for Plutarch (Mor. 1096 ὁ) to allude to Cyn. V 33 as 
written by Xenophon. On the other hand the Cynegeticus in its 
present form confessedly written for the young is not likely to be 
quoted by men of mature habit of mind unless the author 
thereof be already a man of reputation. When the author 
becomes famous or when his readers in turn become writers, we 
may look for allusion. We may expect the allusion to be faint; 
we shall not be disappointed. Besides this reminiscential liter- 
ary illusion in the present case if the book had any scientific 
value we should expect to see statements quoted or combated in 
technical works unless the author has tempered his matter too 
successfully to the young brain he addresses. 

An allusion to the Cynegeticus. in Theophrastus would be 
highly satisfactory. Radermacher however questions: Ob unsere 
Schrift bereits dem Theophrast vorgelegen hat? Man vergleiche 


THE CYNEGETICUS. 25 


de c. pl. 19, 20, 4 οὔτε yap θέρους εὔοσμα (801]. τὰ ἴχνη) οὔτε χειμῶνος 
οὔτε ἦρος, ἀλλὰ μάλιστα τοῦ φθινοπώρου. χειμῶνος μὲν γὰρ ὑγρά, θέρους δ᾽ 
αὖ ξηρανθέντα, διὸ καὶ μεσημβρίας χείριστα. τοῦ δ᾽ ἦρος αἱ τῶν ἀνθέων * 
ὀσμαὶ παρενοχλοῦσι, τὸ δὲ μετόπωρον σύμμετρον ἔχει πρὸς ἅπαντα τὴν κρᾶσιν 
mit Cyneg. 5, 1 χειμῶνος μὲν οὖν πρῷ οὐκ ὄζει αὐτῶν, dann 5, 2-4 tiber 
die verschiedenen Niederschlige, welche die Spur verwischen, 
weiter 5, 5 τὸ δὲ Zap κεκραμένον τῇ Spa καλῶς παρέχει τὰ ἴχνη λαμπρὰ πλὴν 
εἴ τι ἡ γῆ ἐξανθοῦσα βλάπτει τὰς κύνας εἰς τὸ αὐτὸ συμμιγνύουσα τῶν ἀνθῶν 
τὰς ὀσμάς. λεπτὰ δὲ καὶ ἀσαφῆ τοῦ θέρους" διάπυρος γὰρ οὖσα ἡ γῆ ἀφανίζει 
τὸ θερμὸν ὃ ἔχουσιν" ἔστι γὰρ λεπτόν. * τοῦ δὲ μετοπώρου καθαρά" ὅσα γὰρ ἡ 
γῆ φέρει, τὰ μὲν ἥμερα συγκεκόμισται, τὰ δὲ ἄγρια γήρᾳ διαλέλυται. Offen- 
bar hat Theophrast den Inhalt der Stelle sehr genau wiedergege- 
ben; nur vermisst man fiir sein διὸ καὶ μεσημβρίας χείριστα etwas 
Entsprechendes. Aber das steht unmittelbar vorher im Ueber- 
gang vom vierten zum fiinften Kapitel: ἀγέσθωσαν δὲ θέρους μὲν μέχρι. 
μεσημβρίας. So beriihren sich auch Theophrast a. 0. 19, 5, 6: 
διὰ τοῦτο καὶ τὰ ἴχνη τῶν λαγῶν εὐσημότερα Ψεκασθέντα μαλακῶς ὑπ᾽ αὐτὴν 
τὴν κυνηγίαν und OCyneg. 8, 1 ἰχνεύεσθαι δὲ τοὺς λαγῶς ὅταν νίφῃ ὁ θεὸς 
ὥστε ἠφανίσθαι τὴν γῆν" εἰ δ᾽ ἐνέσται μελάγχιμα, δυσζήτητος ἔσται. Hin 
sicheres Urtheil lisst sich freilich auch nicht hier gewinnen. 

Ein sicheres Urtheil—unfortunately not. Yet candidly I 
must confess that it is the most tangible allusion to the Cyne- 
geticus I can find in the literature of this period. 

Besides the apparent cross-references in Xenophon and Iso- 
crates already noticed by Kaibel—and we must remember in that 
case we have to deal with the amenities of fellow-demesmen— 
I venture to draw attention to the following passages: Cyn. IV 1 
in connection with Simon and Xen. de re equestri, II 3 in con- 
nection with Plato, Rep. II 375, [X 12 and Hypereides, portions 
of IX and Eur. Bacchae, XI 3 and Demosthenes. 

In Cyn. IV 1 in the enumeration of the points of a well-bred 
hound, we have the expression σκέλη πολὺ μείζω τὰ ὄπισθεν τῶν 
ἔμπροσθεν καὶ ἐπίρρικνα. ἐπίρρικνος L. and ὅδ. translate “shrunk 
up,” “relatively lean” says Dakyns in his translation. To 
describe the effect one might suggest couchant expectant. We 
know the Greeks had an eye to form and often caught a pose 
where our eyes are too matter-of-fact. One has but to see a 
pointer handled to catch a judge’s fancy, or for that matter any 
fast animal on the alert, to yaerrecinto the appearance of the 


Notice that Aristotle (sens. 444 a 32). held that man alone enjoyed the 
faculty of smelling flowers. “4 


1 26 THE CYNEGETICUS. 


shoulder being the highest point behind the neck, and this I take 
it is the significance of ἐπίρρικνος. With the author of the Cyne- 
geticus the eye is a well-trained judge. Symmetry is a component 
part in the summing up of the ideal dog, IV 2 (as of the hare V 
30), ἀσύμμετροι are the mongrels III 1 and 3, μὴ ἀσύμμετρος, ship- 
shape, the arrangement of the nets in II 7%. A similar appeal 
to the eye is, perhaps naturally, noticeable in the opening of 
Simon’s treatise περὶ εἴδους καὶ ἐπιλογῆς ἵππων, the book on which 
Xenophon based his De re equestri ... . δοκεῖ « δέ!» μοι περὶ ἱππικῆς 
<émioxenréov εἶναι)» πρῶτον, «(εἴ τις)» ἐπιθυμεῖ εἰδέναι καλῶς τοῦτο τὸ 
μάθημα. «πρῶτον μὲν οὖν χρὴ» τὴν πατρίδα γιγνώσκειν, ὡς ἔστιν κατά γε 
τὴν Ἑλλάδα χώραν κρατίστη ἣ Θεσσαλία. τὸ δὲ μέγεθος τρία τῶν ὀνομάτων 
ἐπιδέχεται" μέγα, μικρὸν, εὐμέγεθες, ἢ εἰ βούλει σύμμετρον, καὶ δῆλον ἐφ᾽ οὗ 
τῶν ὀνομάτων ἁρμόσει ἕκαστον. κράτιστον δὲ ἐν παντὶ ζῴῳ ἡ συμμετρία. 
χρόᾳ δὲ οὐκ ἔχω ἵππων ἀρετὴν ὁρίσαι. δοκεῖ δέ μοι ὅμως <yxaitn> ἥτις 
ὁμόχρους ἐστὶν αὐτὴ ἑαυτῇ ὅλῃ καὶ εὔθριξ μάλιστα ἀρίστη εἶναι ὡς ἐπὶ «τὸ» 
πολὺ, «(ἔτι δὲ)» ἡ πορρωτάτω ὄνου καὶ ἡμιόνου. Symmetry then occu- 
pies a prominent place with Simon. The passage contains other 
more interesting points of contact with the Cynegeticus. In the 
first place the mention of the locality of the breed as a recom- 
mendation. In Cyn. X 1 hounds are known as Ἰνδικαί, Κρητικαί, 
Aoxpides, Λάκαιναι, in II] 3 they are differentiated as Καστόριαι and 
ἀλωπεκίδες, pure-bred and mongrels. The author continuesin X 1 
πρῶτον μὲν οὖν χρὴ εἶναι τὰς κύνας ἐκ τούτου τοῦ γένος μὴ τὰς ἐπιτυχούσας 
ἵνα ἕτοιμαι ὦσι πολεμεῖν τῷ Onpio. Pierleoni® writes “ivdiccis ... 
λοκρίδας Secludam,” oblivious to the obvious reference in Philo- 
Stratus Eixoves, κή, Συοθῆραι, ““γράφει δὴ Aoxpidas Aakaivas Ἰνδικάς 
Κρητικάς." Dakyns expresses himself as at ἃ loss to understand 
τούτου. Diels suggests τούτων rod γένος. They omit to notice that 
mongrels are referred to, III 4, as ἐκ τῶν αὐτῶν κυνῶν (i. 6. ἀλωπεκί- 
δων---διότι ἐκ κυνῶν τε καὶ ἀλωπεκίδων ἐγένοντο III 1), the pure breed in 
III 11 in the phrase οἵας δὲ δεῖ εἶναι τοῦ αὐτοῦ γένους τά τε εἴδη καὶ τὰ 
ἄλλα, φράσω. Aristeides (réy. ῥητ. Sp. II 534, 27, a testimonium 
omitted by Pierleoni) quotes the passage in X 1 as τὰς κύνας ἑκάστου 
γένους, which certainly is a correction that an editor of the Cyne- 
geticus should not have failed to make whether in Classical, 
Roman or Modern times. But where are the Castorians? Where 


1Eugenius Oder, De Hippiatricorum codice Cantabrigiensi, Rhein. Mus. 
LI 1896 p. 67, for the text. In this passage the corrections are those of 
Blass. 

3 Xenophontis Cynegeticus rec. Ginus Pierleoni, Berl. 1902. 


THE CYNEGETICUS. 27 


are our διττὰ γένηῖ Where we left them in chapter III and where 
they lie buried until they receive a memorial tablet in the Antho- 
logy—a cenotaph indeed.’ In spite of III 4, I am tempted to 
see in III 11 a local allusion edited out of recognition. The 
humour of the “two sorts of dogs ” demands that the author of 
the passage should own the Castorian Kennels or be master of 
chase to the Castorian hunt. Must the Castor of III 1 be a god 
—may he not be a local genius—a dogman? Failing that may 
we look for Castoria on the ancient map? Indifferent to the 
prejudiced claim our author makes for his breed, Aristotle says 
all “Spartan hounds” went back to a fox cross—all showed a 
dip of the brush as we might say. 

Be this as it may, dogs are classed by locality, and locality is a 
prime recommendation to Simon. But not colour. In the de re 
eq. Xenophon looks at a horse’s foot first—a criticism on Simon. 
He does not mention colour except once quite inappositely, I 17, 
πολλῷ yap πλείονες εὐχρόαστοι ἐξ αἰσχρῶν ἢ ἐκ τοιούτων αἰσχροὶ γίγνονται. 
The word has given trouble to editors. With the author of the 
Cynegeticus it is different. Compare the following, IV 6: εὔτριχες 
δὲ, ἐὰν ἔχωσι λεπτὴν καὶ πυκνὴν καὶ μαλακὴν τὴν τρίχα. τὰ δὲ χρώματα ov 
χρὴ εἶναι τῶν κυνῶν οὔτε πυρρὰ οὔτε μέλανα οὔτε λευκὰ παντελῶς" ἔστι γὰρ 
οὐ γενναῖον τοῦτο, ἀλλ᾽ ἁπλοῦν καὶ θηριῶδες. αἱ μὲν οὖν πυρραὶ ἔχουσαι ἔστ- 
ὡσαν λευκὴν τρίχα ἐπανθοῦσαν περὶ τὰ πρόσωπα .. «.... Be it further 
observed that Simon uses the Inf.-imvy. in εἶτα εὔποδα εἶναι, albeit 
Oder adds “ certe δεῖ vel χρή supplendum” ; the imy. in -cay occurs 
in a passage rejected by Blass—the sole case of a plural imy. in 
the fragment. When we remember the difference of subject and 
of audience’ there is a curious similarity between the treatise of 
Simon and the Hunter’s Manual. 

Plato makes many whimsical allusions to Cynism generally 
but in the following I think I detect an actual allusion to the 
wording in the Cynegeticus. Our author (II 3) requires of the 
Keeper (ἀρκυωρός) that he be ἐλαφρός, ἰσχυρός, ψυχὴν δὲ ἱκανός, 1 
order that he may take pleasure in his work. He chooses Indian 
dogs for deer hunting because they are ἰσχυραί, μεγάλαι; ποδώκεις» 
οὐκ ἄψυχοι" adding ἔχουσαι δὲ ταῦτα ἱκαναὶ γίγνονται πονεῖν (IX 1 cp. IV 
2), I trace a reference to the former passage in Plato, Rep. 11 375, 


1 Nicander of Colophon, Pollux V 40. Anthol. Pal. 6. 167. 

2Cp. Xen. de re eq. IL 1: πολὺ δὲ κρεῖττον τοῦ πωλοδάμνην εἶναι τῷ μὲν νέῳ 
εὐεξίας τε ἐπιμελεῖσθαι τῆς ἑαυτοῦ καὶ ἱππικῆς ἢ ἐπισταμένῳ ἤδη ἱππάζεσθαι μελετᾶν " 
τῷ δὲ πρεσβυτέρῳ τοῦ τε οἴκου καὶ τῶν φίλων καὶ τῶν πολιτικῶν καὶ τῶν πολεμικῶν 
μᾶλλον ἢ ἀμφὶ πώλευσιν διατρίβειν. 


28 THE CYNEGETICUS. 


Οἴει οὖν τι, ἣν δ᾽ ἐγώ, διαφέρειν φύσιν γενναίου σκύλακος εἰς φυλακὴν νεανίσ- 
κου εὐγενοῦς ; Τὸ ποῖον λέγεις; Οἷον ὁ ξύν τί πὸυ δεῖ αὐτοῖν ἑκάτερον εἶναι 
πρὸς αἴσθησιν καὶ ἐλαφρὸν πρὸς τὸ αἰσθανόμενον διωκάθειν, calico χυρὸν 
αὖ, ἐὰν δέῃ ἑλόντα διαμάχεσθαι. We note however in Plato the ab- 
sence of the Cynic test of man and dog which is a prominent 
feature in the Cynegeticus, viz. φιλοπονία. This quality is, how- 
ever, not lost sight of in Rep. 535 ἃ already quoted. 

In Cyn. IX 12 we have an intricate description of the 
ποδοστράβαι used for deer, an intricacy not elucidated much by 
Pollux V 32 as far as their manufacture is concerned. Harpo- 
cration 8. V. ποδοστράβαι and the Etym. M. both couple the names 
of Hypereides and Xenophon as using the word. This has led 
Revillout to reconstruct a passage in Hypereides V 18 as ἀλλὰ καὶ 
πέντε τάλαντα προσαφείλου pe ὥσπερ ὑποχείριον ἐν ποδοστράβῃ εἰλημμένον, 
a reading virtually accepted by Weil, Blass, Sandys (Cl. Rev. - 
1895 p. 71 f.) and generally. The young rustic, plucked by the 
“wily Egyptian ” and a courtesan is now in the toils of the law. 
The reference certainly gains point when the contrast is made 
between the helplessness of the victim and cumbrousness of the 
machine as described by our author. Although the simile was 
used by Hypereides also in his speech against Autocles (frg. 62), 
the argument for a reference to the Cynegeticus is somewhat 
weakened by frg. 34, where (in his speech against Aristogeiton 
made memorable by the words ἐπεσκότει μοι τὰ Μακεδόνων ὅπλα) We 
read σὺ δὲ ὦ OdAmave εἰ τὴν γαλεάγραν ζητεῖς, ἔχεις. 

If one reads Cyn. 1X on the hunting of fawns and then turns 
to Euripides Bacchae 862 he will note many points in common, 
but will also note that Euripides (1. 870) considered that fawns 
were caught by means of nets. I have elsewhere (Studies in 
Honor of B. L. Gildersleeve p. 447) hinted that the presence of 
the ἀρκυωρός in Cyn. [IX 6 would be sufficient to mislead a poet 
who, like his friend Socrates, was not asportsman. In connection 
we may reflect that the Bacchae was written at the close of Kuri- 
pides’ life, for Archelaus and a not altogether congenial Mace- 
donian audience, on a theme that was the mainspring of the 
Macedonian nationality, and that in the play, which has often 
been held to constitute a manner of recantation, he advises his 
audience to abjure rationalism and stick to their hunting.’ 


1Compare 1252 εἴθε παῖς ἐμὸς εὔθηρος ein, μητροὶς εἰκασθεὶς τρόποις .. . ἀλλὰ 
θεομαχεῖν μόνον οἷός τ᾽ ἐκεῖνος and ef. Tyrrell Introd. p. XVII, Mahaffy Euri- 
pides, p. 85. One would expect the brother of Cynegeirus to use hunt- 
ing metaphors correctly. In Eum. 112 I am inclined to take ἀρκυσμάτων, even 


THE CYNEGETICUS. 29 


In XI 3, of big game, we read ra δὲ αὐτῶν καταβαίνοντα εἰς τὸ πεδίον 
τῆς νυκτὸς ἀποκλεισθέντα μετὰ ἵππων καὶ ὅπλων ἁλίσκεται, εἰς κίνδυνον καθισ- 
τάντα τοὺς αἱροῦντας. Demosthenes, whose metaphors from hunting 
are usually confined to cases where the management of affairs 
has passed beyond Athenian control,’ employs the metaphor of 
περιστοιχίζεσθαι in 6. 27 and in 6. 14 we read of Philip adn’ ἐβιάσθη 
νὴ Δία (τοῦτο yap ἐσθ᾽ ὑπόλοιπον) καὶ παρὰ γνώμην; τῶν Θετταλῶν ἱππέων 
καὶ τῶν Θηβαίων ὁπλιτῶν ἐν μέσῳ ληφθείς, συνεχώρησε ταῦτας. The pas- 
sage in Demosthenes—dada shows it is hypophoric—gains point 
if we suppose the reference is to the lion of the North coming 
down from his fastnesses and caught on the plains; it gains 
further point if there is a hidden menace to the captors as indi- 
cated in the Cynegeticus. To my mind ἱππέων καὶ ὁπλιτῶν ἐν μέσῳ 
ληφθείς is a Classical prose translation of ἀποκλεισθέντα μετὰ ἵππων 
καὶ ὅπλων ἁλίσκεται As the big game is the subject of the sentence 
μετά Cannot be translated precisely unless in the sense of ἐν μέσῳ; 
that is in what we are led to consider its earliest significance.’ 


* * * * * 


If the Cynegeticus appeared in Attica in its present form with 
or without the introductory chapter in the first quarter of the 
IVth century and the writer was already well on in years, where 
did he acquire his intimate knowledge of hare hunting and deer 
running? The falling off of the hare in Attica may be a comic 


in spite of 145, as of the human net of beaters. The word ἐγκατιλλώψας im- 
plies a personified, sentient net at the side; the exasperated hunter does 
not notice the eye of the escaping deer but the adieu he waves with his 
tail. Sophocles is more to be trusted in this respect. Agamemnon sinned 
against Artemis, against Sport, because he shot an ἔλαφον that was at once 
στικτὸς καὶ κεράστης, and therefore probably a pet animal of the Persian 
variety. Compare Pindar Ol. 3. 29 where Gildersleeve comments: “ Mythic 
does have mythic horns.”? 

1Dem. 3. 3 τὰ πλείω τῶν πραγμάτων ἡμᾶς ἐκπεφευγέναι ef. 14. 15, 18. 33. 
Cf. 4. 8 κατέπτηχε μέντοι πάντα, ibid. 9 κύκλῳ πανταχῇ μέλλοντας ἡμᾶς καὶ καϑη- 
μένας περιστοιχίζεται. Harpocration 8. v. περιστοιχίζεται refers to this passage 
and elucidates from Xen. Cyn. (VI 5 and 8). 

2ὅπλα for ὁπλῖται Soph. Ant. 115. (πολλῶν μεθ᾽ ὅπλων ξύν θ᾽ ἱπποκόμοις Kopv- 
θεσσι) and Thue. ἵπποι for ἵππος = ἱππῆς is apparently not used by technical 
writers. 

3Cf. Monro Hom. Gram. §§ 193-6. Of course I recognise that while 
μέσος seems to be related to Sk. mddhya, it is convenient to associate μετά 
(Indo-germ. Forsch. III 199) with L. peto. πεδά. I am inclined to think 
that with the two usages of μετά we have to do with homonyms. 


30 THE CYNEGETICUS. 


jest,’ but Attica possessed of enemies was no place for a sports- 
man. On the other hand there is a wealth of observation 
quaintly incorporated in the Cynegeticus, as true to life as the 
picture of poor Wat in Shakespeare.? Again where did he get his 
information on deer hunting, which is carried on by stalking 
or trapping but not by netting? Not from the Poets, Pindar 
with his horned doe, Sophocles with his στικτὸς καὶ κεράστης, Euri- 
pides with his netting of fawns; not from Attica, we may infer. 
There is little in the Cynegeticus to indicate topography, but 
that little is significant. 

A qualification for the Keeper in Cyn. II 3 is that he speak 
Greek. This may refer to the selection of a slave, but the idea of 
ἃ véos—and to such the book is directed—taking out a slave who 
could not understand what he said is preposterous. The keeper 
is probably a habitant and speaks a dialect not recognized by the 
philologians of the time as Greek, a patois. The qualification © 
points to the North. 

In V 22 Hares are divided into two species—dvo δὲ καὶ τὰ γένη 
ἐστὶν avrav—elsewhere (III 1) it was said τὰ δὲ γένη τῶν κυνῶν ἐστι 
durrd—one larger, darker approaching the shade of ripening olives 
(ἐπίπερκνοι, er Pollux V 67, ἔστι δὲ τοῦτο περκνῆς ἐλαίας τὸ εἶδος, οὔτ᾽ 
ὄμφακος ἔτι οὔτ᾽ ἤδη μελαινομένης) with a comparatively large white 
blaze on the forehead, the variation in colour including the 
whole tail (κύκλῳ περιποίκιλος), eyes inclining to yellow (ὑποχάροποι) 
ears showing plenty of black. The other species is comprised of 
smaller hares, inclining to light brown (ἐπίξανθοι), with less white 
on the forehead, tail white at the side (οὐρά is used throughout), 
eyes inclining towards blue,* less black about the ear. We are to 
infer that the big hares are most common in the highlands, the 
smaller on the islands—we are given reasons for this. There is 
perhaps another reason the author does not give, viz. that the 
highlands were nearer Central Europe, the islands in Southern 
Europe. Hares differ in these regions.‘ 

10f Nausicrates. 

28ee Paul Stapfer, Shakespeare and Classical Antiquity, trans. by E. 
Cary, p. 136. ‘The too caressing boar who killed Adonis with a kiss had 
not been seen out hunting as the hare had.”’ 

3 ὑπόγλαυκος ; as in ὑποχάροποι and yaporoi III 8 one may suppose that it 
is the slight predominance of these pigments that determines the colour. 
I observe that the lion’s eyes are yellow, the leopard’s blue. According to 
Scholiast to Lycophron χάρων was the Macedonian for lion. 


*Possibly a slight clue to the locality of the hunting ground might be 
traced from the atmospheric conditions. From Cyn. VIII 1 we learn that 


THE CYNEGETICUS. 21 


I have already referred to the possibility of the ἀρκυωρός, the 
keeper, the guide, speaking a patois (Cyn. II 3). Indications of 
this patois may perhaps underlie the name Πολύς and the tech- 
nical term yapords. 

Now in a footnote to his article’ Radermacher calls attention 
to the presence of the colourless adjective πολύς among the sub- 
stantives suggested in Cyn. VIII 5 as suitable names for hounds. 
He proposes Ποδῆς a name for a hound recognised by ©. I. 6. 
8139. I would rather see in the word an affinity to the root med 
Sk. car, with the meaning “ Ranger,” and if the form offends 
change to Modes. At the same time I would refer to Arist. 
Vesp. 1228 παραπολεῖ Bodpevos, Which might be translated “ You 
bark up the wrong tree.”? It is worthy of note that in his list 
of proposed names the author of the Cynegeticus suggests none 
of dogs that are famous. 

In Cyn. III 2 we find among the defects of hounds the word 
xaporot Which I would translate “Dudley faced,” an objection 
that still holds good in the ring. Curiously enough if we are to 
credit the Schol. ad Lycophr. Alex., the Macedonian for lion was 
χάρων. Later the proper signification of the word fades and we 
get it used as synonymous with γλαυκός, but Aristotle whose ac- 
curacy in such subjects was due to Macedonia,’ does not fail to 
differentiate the terms in H. A. I. 10 and G. A. V 1, although in 
the latter passage he does not discuss the yaporoi among men. 
There seems to have been a superstition in the word, as it was 
confidently asserted that only ἃ χαροπός horse could face a lion.* 
Arrian (Cyn. IV 5) takes exception to the point made by our 
author, and holds that a yapords eye does not necessarily betoken 


a north wind means continued frost, but a southerly wind a rise in temper- 
ature. In the vicinity of Plataea, according to Thucydides III 23, 5 an 
east or north wind (Dobrie however rejects ἢ βορέου) brings a thaw. 

1P. 625. 

2Once assume that such a form with such an interpretation may pass 
muster and we get an interesting phenomenon in the language of the 
brother of Cynegeiros. In the second part of the strophe of the Agamemnon 
commencing (717) ἔθρεψεν δὲ λέοντος ivi, figurative possibly of Menelaus’ 
unsuspecting entertainment of Paris, we read: πολέα δ᾽ ἔσχ᾽ ἐν ἀγκάλαις | veo- 
τρόφου τέκνου δίκαν | φαιδρωπὸς (°G¢ Weil) ποτὶ χεῖρα cai | νων te (Covta Auratus) 
γαστρὸς ἀνάγκαις. If πολέα may be an unusual word meaning Ranger, 
Plunderer, it might well be paraphrased oivy, which would account for the 
reading λέοντα σίνιν of the first line. 

3 Aelian, V. H. IV 19. 4Oppian, Cyn. IV 114 f. 


32 | THE CYNEGETICUS. 


an inferior dog. An examination of the passage however will 
show that Arrian considers pards, lions and lynxes to have 
similar eyes which vitiates his evidence. On the other-hand our 
author has a prejudice against this style of dog. Moreover we 
are surprised to find that he does not mention Molossian dogs 
which were a famous breed in antiquity, and valuable enough to. 
to be imported by Polycrates’ into Samos. Now Oppian? tells 
us that the Molossians were χαροποί. I am inclined to fancy 
that the objection of our author was a local one. 

I must reserve for another occasion the investigation of the 
sphere of the imperatives in -cay which are a distinctive feature 
of the Cynegeticus. For the present I would merely hint at the 
occurrence of instances in Demosthenes and Hypereides closely 
following upon charges of undue Macedonian influence, and in 
inscriptions connected with bribery and corruption. ; 

Finally in regard to the list of heroes mentioned in the Proem 
I would notice that the names are taken from the Almanac of 
Greek Chivalry whence the Macedonian nobles derived their 


names.° 
eae ENO ἈΠ. 

To sum up my conclusions, then, there is evidence of allusion 
to the Cynegeticus in classical Greek Literature such as would 
warrant our dating the treatise early in the 1Vth century, and 
possibly in the Vth. A theory by which Xenophon as a young 
man compiled the Cynegeticus from other sources will satisfy the 
discrepancies between upholders of the work as Xenophon’s and 
those who consider it spurious. Certain internal evidence points 
to a Macedonian origin for parts of the treatise. 


1 Athen. XII 540 d. 2 Cyn. I 375. 
3Wilamowitz, Introd. to Eur. Herc. Fur. 


LEEBRAES 
OF THE 


| UNIVERSITY 
OF " 


ἣς [Αἰ FoRNIALHA 
SCALFoRNI 


“a 


VITA. 


Henry Nevill Sanders was born in Edinburgh, Scotland, July 
14th, 1869, the second son of William Rutherford Sanders M. D., 
Professor in the University of Edinburgh, whose life has been 
recorded in the Dictionary of National Biography. H. N. 
Sanders was educated at Fettes College, Edinburgh, and entered 
the University there, studying under Professors Tait and Crum 
Brown. Having, however, shortly afterwards moved to Canada, 
he entered the University of Trinity College, Toronto, where he 
was awarded the Prize for Latin Verse and the Burnside and Wel- 
lington Scholarships for Classics, and received the degree of 
B. A. in 1894, winning the Prince of Wales’ Prize as Senior 
Classic. He then studied under Professors von Wilamowitz and 
Dziatzko in Goettingen, and in 1896 entered the Johns Hopkins 
University as a graduate student, studying Greek, Latin and San- 
skrit under Professors Gildersleeve, Bloomfield, Warren, K. F. 
Smith and C. W. E. Miller. To these he is under a deep debt of 
gratitude not only for their assistance to him as a student but 
also for many good offices since recorded. In 1897 he was made 
Fellow in Greek at Johns Hopkins University, and in the fol- 
lowing year after proceeding to the degree of M. A. at Trinity 
University, Toronto, he was appointed lecturer in Greek and 
Latin, later in Sanskrit also, at McGill University, Montreal, a 
position he held until 1902 when he was elected Associate Pro- 
fessor of Greek at Bryn Mawr College, Pennsylvania. 


IBRA 
» OF are 


UNIVERSITy ) 


OF 
SAL'FoRNIKA 


piste 
Wik 
2 


we 


be “ἢ 
anes 
os ih 


el ΓΝ 
an ae 


e 


RETURN CIRCULATION DEPARTMENT 
TO => Main Library 9 198 Main Stacks 


LOAN PERIOD 1 IN R a 3 
L | 


HOME USE 
4 
ALL BOOKS MAY BE RECALLED AFTER 7 DAYS. 
Renewls and Recharges may be made 4 days prior to the due date. 
Books may be Renewed by calling 642-3405. 


DUE AS STAMPED BELOW 


SENT ON ILE 


we | 
AUG -2 24987 
U. C. BERKELEY 


UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY 
FORM NO. DD6 BERKELEY, CA 94720-6000 


